>> not what you want to see when you're looking out the window of your jet. >> ever. >> a 10-foot python hitching a ride on the plane. they looked out to see the snake on the wing of the plane, fighting for its life against cold winds and hung on nearly two hours and they could see the spectacle themselves. unfortunately, the poor snake was dead on arrival. >> ever have something like that happen to you, jon? >> thankfully, no, but this is actually the kind of thing at that gives the folks in hawaii nightmares, they have to try to keep snakes out of places like hawaii and that's how they get there. >> oh. >> fortunately, this one was not alive, i guess.

>> just didn't work out. all right. >> poor snake. >> and a strange story for you today. hope you have a great weekend. thank you for joining us on this friday. >> "america live" starts right now. >> megyn: fox news alert, growing pushback right now against the obama administration today on the possibility of new federal gun regulations. welcome to "america live," happy friday, i 'm megyn kelly. as they are set to old a gun appreciation day this month, more and more people are looking at keeping uncle sam's hands off their weapons. eight states here, have laws exempting guns with federal regulations so long as they're within the state's border. some in wyoming want to go further, considering a fill making any federal gun regulation after january of this year, unenforceable if it bans or restricts ownership of

semi automatic guns and magazines. or if it requires guns and accessories to be registered. cries stirewalt is our fox news digital power play editor and power play live. so wyoming sort of sending a message to washington, we don't care what you do. things are going to stay the way they are here in wyoming and not only that, but if you pass some law banning semi automatic guns and magazines and try and arrest somebody, we're going to arrest you, and charge you with a felony. chase going on here? >> well, megyn, you remember when we had the obamacare stuff, the president's health care law, we've had states across the country pass constitutional amendments saying you cannot mandate the citizens of that state to purchase health insurance and we're going to see the tests on that play out in the months and years to come and we've seen states rebel against the law by opting out of the medicare or medicaid

provisions of it. we saw that before and now we'll see it again and we're preparing again to see states push back on this. and in this case, it's the response is going to be even more intense because you're dealing with black and white, you're dealing with what the second amendment says. this is a clear discussion where half-- not half, but a huge number of americans believe that they are absolutely protected in whatever kind of firearms they want to have, versus people who think that the federal government is within its right to restrict them and restrict them more and more. so you'll see states like wyoming and others draw a bright line distinction and the country is going to divide itself over this question he. >> megyn: but, and i don't want to get legal on you stirewalt. >> no ma'am. no ma'am. >> megyn: but it's a pretty fundamental premise that a state cannot pass a law that would bar enforcement of an otherwise lawful federal law. so, i mean, i presume, wyoming

would be, well he, that crackdown on gun restrictions is unconstitutional and we don't have to follow unconstitutional laws, but that's setting it up for a major legal battle with the feds, seems to be exactly where it wants to go? >> i would not imagine for a moment to discuss the law with you, madam, i know better than that. >> megyn: madam. (laughter) >> but i do know this. i know from the politics side of this, which is something i know about, what vice-president biden and attorney general holder and their compatriots are doing right now is generating real fear in places like wyoming and rural states and southern states and places where guns are part of the culture and part of the life. when you hear them say things like, individuals selling one to another a gun or perhaps giving a gun as a gift, that's something i know about. i received shotguns as christmas presents. >> megyn: you're from--

>> i am, that's legit. the deal is for big parts of the country, the idea if a father were to sell or trade his son a gun, give him a gift, there'd need to be a background check before that takes place, that is generating tremendous anxiety and tremendous outrage in places like wyoming. >> megyn: we think about it differently in the city, a different relationship, most of us, in big cities with guns because they tend to exist in high crime centers, than fly over country, as it's known in america, does. >> those of us from fly over country, guns are part of life and neighbors have guns and we know kind of stuff. it's part of growing up, how you become a man or a woman is that you figure these things out and your relationship to firearms, firearms safety and all of that good stuff, i'm not saying it's better or worse, but maybe on the upper west side of manhattan it's not as much a part of life and

there is this chasm, this incredible understanding about guns and i'm saying for the attorney general and vice-president when they talk about stuff like this, they're not bringing people to the middle to have a discussion, they're going to create more of the kinds of things you're seeing in wyoming and other states. >> megyn: one more quick question, an interesting post on hotair.com positing, none of this on capitol hill is about getting a gun law. it's about setting the republicans up to take a more extreme position, such that they have to, you know, that's what they need to do to win their go into general election they will he' lose to more moderate sounding democrats on this issue, and that democrats retake control of the house? >> well, i'd like to see harry reid with so many of his members from red states vulnerable in the coming election, and like to see the response he gets if he proposes to bring forward any serious gun restriction. i don't think it's coming out of the senate.

i think too many in the senate majority leader's caucus would say no thank you, no thank you, mr. reid, the chances of a vote coming in the house-- >> see you soon. fly-over country or the heartland. in colorado, a state that's seen its fair share of tragic shootings, the state's legislature is considering several bills to regulate guns. as lawmakers worked earlier this week, 150 worried guns rights activists quietly marched outside to protest the still unwritten been control measures. here is more from the new democratic speaker of the house and some in the crowd. >> a lot of these things can be preempted or eliminated altogether if law abiding citizens packing heat could just do something about it before it it gets out of hand. >> the second amendment is sack crv v sack croand so is th

first. >> it can be destructive, no doubt about that, but we have them because government is making government is making decisions we oppose. >> megyn: coming up in the next hour we will speak directly to the n.r.a. about its big meeting with the vice-president yesterday when chris cox, executive director for the n.r.a. legislative action joins us live. don't miss that. developing right now, new information on the nationwide flu outbreak. the death toll is rising as one federal health agency is now calling this an epidemic. look at the red on your map. those are the states suffering widespread flu problem. a short time ago, the c.d.c. released its latest numbers. 20 children have died and now 47 states reporting widespread influenza outbreaks, up from 47 the week before.

and these conditions may persist for weeks. but those c.d.c. numbers lag by a couple of weeks and just the last 48 hours we've learned there are now 27 dead in minnesota, 22 in pennsylvania, 18 in massachusetts, 8 in oklahoma, 6 in illinois, in new york, two nursing home patients have died, and it's important to note that the elderly, the ill and the young are considered the most vulnerable. we are going to bring you more developments on this as we get them. well, terrifying new details emerging from a crime drama in los angeles, it sounds like a movie, but it's real. armed robbers burst into a clothing store late last night taking 14 workers hostage before they were rescued by an s.w.a.t. team early this morning. now, we're learning that at least some of the hostages were assaulted during the siege. trace gallagher has more live from los angeles, trace? >> yeah, this began, megyn, as an after hours robbery at

nordstrom rack store. a man called 911 saying his girlfriend who worked inside the store saying there were two gunman inside. the cops and s.w.a.t. teams stormed the mall and police saw a man walk out of the second floor, saw the cops and went back inside. another man came out with a woman and also saw the cops and he, too, ran back inside and it went on for hours. in this mall, there are restaurants and movie theaters right next doors, the movies were playing and the theater goers were on lockdown. >> we were at the cinemas, and well, they closed it down while we were watching the movie and we were stuck in there for about an hour and a half till the-- i guess the officer came down and some lady from the s.w.a.t. team just said that they might possibly have rifles and that we could get shot. >> reporter: during the entire standoff, police never made contact with anybody

inside that nordstrom rack store. finally at three o'clock in the morning they stormed the place, find the 14 employees locked in a storage room and a bathroom. one had been stabbed, but will survive. another had been sexually assaulted. there were no suspects inside. somehow, during the standoff, they somehow got out, police did find what they think is the getaway car, but again, megyn, no suspects inside that store. >> megyn: what a scary ordeal, trace, thanks. well, there are new warnings from a powerful senator what could happen if the epa does not answer questions -- answer all the questions about the use of alias e-mail accounts, this is in the wake of the top person at the epa, lisa jackson, using all of this, you know, sending out he e-mails and receiving e-mails under this alias, richard windsor. and were those all disclosed, where people submitted requests? did the epa and other

government agencies for any correspondence regarding the epa administrator. there are questions about that. so much so the inspector general is investigating that. we'll speak with the man who exposed this scandal with a simple information request. there are questions whether anybody in the epa could possibly get confirmed as the new epa administrator given what's going on with this issue. 600 people will walk into the florida everglades to hunt the pythons, powerful enough to swallow an alligator whole. what could possibly go wrong? uproar over a proposal for a so-called trillion dollar coin. could it allow washington to keep spending right past our debt ceiling? that's next. ♪ oh, o go on and take the mone and run ♪ ♪ go on, take the money and run ♪ clear, huh? i'm not juice or fancy water.

i've gotine grams of protein. that's three times more than me! [ female announcer ] ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news.

just two aleve can keep pain away all day. avoid bad.fats. don't go over 2000... 1200 calories a day. carbs are bad. carbs are good. the story keeps changing. so i'm not listening... to anyone but myself. i know better nutrition when i see it: great grains. great grains cereal starts whole and stays whole. see the seam? more processed flakes look nothing like naturalrains. you can't argue with nutrition you can see. great grains. search great grains and see for yourself. for multi grain flakes tt are anxcellent source of fiber try great grains banana nut crunch and cranberry almond crunch.

>> well, a controversial new idea picking up steam in the media ahead of the showdown over raising the nation's borrowing limit, our debt limit. the one trillion dollar coin, intended to allow the president to completely ignore the debt ceiling and just keep on spending on the nation that we've got this trillion dollar coin in the bank. here is the idea. the treasury department would mint a one trillion dollar coin, normally supposed to be federal reserve that makes our money, but this would be done by the treasury department and then they would deposit it in the federal reserve they wouldn't circulate it, but be there astra money in our savings and money would be use today finance our government without consent from congress. on wednesday, the white house press secretary jay carney did not rule it out. >> look it, there's no substitute for congress extending the borrowing authority of the united states. >> will they roll it out. >> you can speculate about a lot of things, but there's not-- nothing needs to come to these

kinds of, you know, speculative notion about how to deal with a problem easily resolved by congress doing its job. very simply, since treasury, i believe, overseas printing and minting, you might ask treasury. >> at no point in-- >> and joining me now the chairman of the south carolina democratic party and mark theeson, enterprise institute and former speech writer for george w. bush. if congress doesn't give him the authority to raise the debt limit, he has the end around it with the trillion dollar coin he could just sort of say is there and allows him to spend more because we have this extra savings to really boil it down. mark, your thoughts? >> this, this may be one of the stupidest ideas ever to come out of washington and that's saying something. it's not clear it's legal. edward moy, under bush and

obama may say it's legal to print a trillion dollars platinum coin, it doesn't have a trillion dollars worth of platinum in it. that would require an act of congress and a bank to order one. do you think there's going to be a lot of banks lining up to buy obama's trillion dollar coin? and what people are basically saying, obama should create a trillion dollars out of thin air, if that's such a great idea, why stop at one coin. print 17 of these puppies and eliminate the national debt and print 18 and go into surplus, we don't have to fight over taxing the rich. if you want another stimulus, print a coin and solve social security, print a coin. why doesn't greece do this, have a trillion dollar euro coin and this is perhaps one of the most absurd ideas anyone would come up with and would make us a laughingstock. >> megyn: i have to confess, i

don't understand how it works, but i gather, you don't have to keep making trillion dollar coins, they're not going to be circulating because we don't have that money, but it's there to say we're able to pay our bills, it's a trillion dollar counties and an end-around what president obama may see congress do to him which is perhaps not raise that debt ceiling? >> i think i would agree, this is one of the stupidest ideas. >> megyn: really? >> that comes out of washington. but this, i could puse the pun, it doesn't make "cents", i know it's friday afternoon and people are a little tired. it's a stupid idea and a nonstarter. congress is going to have to extend the debt ceiling or we default on our debt, and it's cataclysm cataclysmic.

i hope and i pray after the inauguration that people reach across the aisle. we're going to have to cut defense. we're going to have to increase the eligibility for entitlements and perhaps cut back on the automatic cost of living increases. we're going to have to do tough things, shared sacrifice and that's going to have to happen and legions of lobbyists surrounding washington in the next couple of weeks, ought to be the folks that ought to be put on the back burner and people, reasonable people on both sides of the aisle are going to have to resolve this. we have to quit spending as much money as we're spending, we all agree, democrats and republicans. the problem is we've got special interest people that don't want, it's not in my back yard. they don't want to have theirs-- >> the people who like this, apparently some blogger he, it was a comment on one blog how this idea got born, but now it's picking up steam in some circles and asking jay carney about it. he didn't endorse it, but it's

interesting that he refused to say we're not doing that and now the argument is, looks the republicans refuse to let anything get done and the nation go over the debt ceiling and wouldn't raise it so president obama has to do what he's got to do to get around the house republicans. >> the reality is, we have a spending problem and i agree with him. the reason it's catching on so much, a sign of how much the leverage from the g.o.p. from president obama. with the fiscal cliff, president obama had the leverage and willing to go over the fiscal cliff, he can't default on the debt so the g.o.p. has a lot of leverage right now to force him to do some spending reform and so we're coming up, the left is coming up trying to come up with ridiculous ideas, trillion dollar magic coin that gets us out of the spending problem. there's not magic solution to

this. the reality is president obama is going to have to compromise with the republicans and if they don't buckle like they did last time around, he will agree and compromise and cave-in and agree to spending cuts. >> megyn: dick, the final word. >> i don't think the president -- the president always said he would compromise and indicated he would support cutting spending. the problem is, that the republicans regard this debt ceiling like a terrorist holding a hostage. don't agree to everything we say and we're going to kill the hostage and that's not compromise and that is not negotiations, that's terrorism. >> megyn: wow-- >> that's what the president did on the fiscal cliff. >> megyn: if the president design to end-around the hostage taking, as you put it, with a trillion dollar coin, it's going to cause a lot of controversy. we'll leave it at that, guys, thank you. >> thank you. >> megyn: see you soon. what are your thoughts, follow me on twitter @megyn kelly. a colorado lawmaker almost

completed legislation that would allow 18 year olds to drink in bars as long as mom and dad are there. trace has how this came around.

>> well, tears flowing for a special military family as a husband and father deploys for war. here is south carolina governor nikki haley, wrapping her arms around her husband, captain michael haley and his national guard unit mobilizing for a month of training and her she is with her son, and long mission with afghanistan. like so many military families the haley's have children, ten-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter and south carolina senator lindsey graham was also on hand to send captain haley off. pictures tell you so much, so easy to forget about what the families, whether it's the governor and her family or regular folks go through as

you go about your day job and think about the folks overseas serving our country. god bless them. well, over in colorado, a little controversy being created by some proposed new rules and underaged drinking. state has caused a fuss by recently legalizing marijuana and one is introducing laws for 18-year-olds in bars as long as they have parents. >> and that's state senator greg brofree and so the legislature could vote on this thing. the deal is, as you can say you can drink if you're with your parents, 18 and over, as long as you and your parents have identification to prove you're related. and here now is the senator. >> i recognize there may be some people who don't like it, again, i have to ask you, if you're trusted to vote, trusted to carry a weapon in

the service of your country, why can't we trust you to buy a beer at the bar. >> the restaurants would have the final say whether 18 year olds and up would actually be served. and the colorado restaurant association opposes this thing and really no way to tell who is legit and who is not. for example, families that don't share the same last name. what about young married couples where one is 21 and the other one is not? not surprisingly, mothers against drunk driving also opposes. listen. >> when people under the age of 21 drink alcohol with their parents, when they are away from their parents, they actually drink more frequently and in larger quantities. >> reporter: and check this out. did you know that 11 states, look at that, is yours one of them? 11 states already have laws, not well-publicized that allow the 18 year olds and up to go out drinking with mom ap dad. connecticut my old home state.

new york. >> megyn: new york. >> reporter: louisiana, texas wisconsin, not a lot of publicity, a lot of people say what you can do, teach your kid responsibility by letting them drink with mom and dad. but clearly a lot of people oppose that, megyn. >> megyn: it's so hard if you don't have the whole society doing it. not like europe everyone does it and alcohol is consumed in moderation, the world in which they grow up speaking generally. here, kids they tend to do binge drinking and so on, even if you do it responsibly, doing it with your friends and so on, there are risks. and something wrong for some people going home from war and going to the vfw with his dad. told you can fight for your country, but can't have a beer. that's on foxnews.com on the web page. and the n.r.a. said the whole thing felt like a show designed to provide political cover in their view.

and described as an attack on the second amendment. we'll speak with the n.r.a. representative next hour about what they plan now as the administration is clearly getting ready to rewrite the rules. and growing questions for president obama after he fills four cabinet seats in a row with white men. now we have discovered a presidential order on hiring from two years ago, that he may be violating himself. plus, an ingenuous prank caught on tape after a man builds a car that drives up to the fast food window with no one behind the wheel. how did he do it? and we'll show you the reactions. when you have diabetes... your doctor will say get smart about your weight. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly

to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. mommy's having a french fry. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle. with three of your daily vegetable servings that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you.

with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals.

so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you.

>> well, yesterday we covered some new criticisms, leveled against president obama over what some see as a serious lack of diversity among his top advisors so far in his second term. over the past few days nominated four people to take over key posts in his administration, all of them are white men. now, today we have discovered that the president could be in violation potentially of his own august 2011 executive order which established a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity in the federal ranks. joining me now, host of the

ben ferguson show through the icon network. and from clifton consulting, okay, he, a couple years ago, wanted to make sure that government at all levels, including the top levels had diversity and now, you know, it's not that there are no women now. we still have kathleen sebelius at health and human services and janet napolitano department of homeland security, but the women are getting few and far between, margery, in the second term obama cabinet. >> the talent we're seeing the same in corporate america, and 5% of ceo's women. and he had last term historically most women and minorities, with 22 cabinet seats, 8 women and 9 minorities. now we've heard that hilda solis the first latino woman in a cabinet is stepping down and so, again, this is creating a challenge of who are the women. now, there's two issues people talk about, it's the pipeline,

but there are a lot of fabulous women, michelle portnoy, who democrats were looking at undersecretary of defense, hoping she might move to the pentagon and overlooked for that position and susan rice now out of the running. the question, do we have enough bench of women. the cabinet positions, it's long hours, my intern went over to the white house and works 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and for a woman would children, how do we work them so women can do them. >> megyn: and talking about this on the air yesterday, i'm a relatively young mother and i would not do a job that would require 12 and 16 hours a day regularly. i'd never see my kid. women make that trade off and men, too, but women. and however, ben, look at the women in the cabinet. hillary clinton in her 60's and janet napolitano i think she's not married and you

know, you can find women who could do the job who aren't necessarily young mothers, it's not like there's an absence of qualified available women out there. so why isn't he finding them? >> well, i think he's finding people he's comfortable with. and that's the problem when you make laws based on political gain. and the president did this to make minority like him and did this so women would like mitt romney better than his binder filled with women. and the democrats are missing right now. and the president has people he likes and trusts and saying the most important job i've got to fill, i'm going with the person that i believe in and not fill a quota even though he told the rest of his government, and maybe why we have such a screwed up government, told them to run their government if it's as quota system instead of the best men or women for the job. the president got himself in a

lot of trouble and did it to himself this time and welcome to the real world. >> megyn: and you know, marjorie, i don't believe that most people believe barack obama is a chauvinist, he's married to a strong woman, and women inside the white house were saying the inner circles are all men, it's hard for the women to be heard. it's an old boy's network and some describe it as a hostile work environment toward women, that the president does some business and bonding at his basketball games which are all male and there's a way that you could sort of set yourself up to be arm's length from the top women in the white house, to when you get to the big decision making moment, oh, i just don't know any top qualified women. >> well, i think one of the challenges he has, you have to look at him, the father of two minority women, and in the case of even my own family, my father, while he makes great, you know, tries to try to

include more women he's naturally in most cases gravitates toward men, the same way i gravitate towards other women talking about challenges in my life. and that's one of the challenges that corporations and law firms are looking at heavily, how do we address this in a way that men and women are comfortable relying on each other. book to pipeline, hillary clinton did raise a daughter and did so with a lot of help around and a lot of women going into the senior roles are having to do so as single women or later in life. >> megyn: there are trade-offs, no doubt you have to make a sacrifice to be a professional woman. but-- >> i agree, look at hillary clinton, hillary clinton was in the incredible position of power and hillary clinton did not recommend a woman to take her job. she actually, from what we've been told, recommended who the president is now recommending and said i know him, i like him, he has good foreign policy experience, i've worked with him. i know him well.

even hillary clinton didn't go and decide that she wanted to put a woman as her recommendation from what we understand. >> but to be fair, susan rice was up for the job originally as well. >> and-- axlerod cast doubt whether she was seriously be considered for the post. the point is she may have been appointed to something. as they say, marjorie, we've got a long way to go. i've got to leave it at that. my apologies for cutting off the panel. going to the white house, breaking news as president obama has finished a meeting with the president of afghanistan offer the future of the u.s. role in that country and they're about to begin a joint press conference. and this guy, hamid karzai made to be a manic depressive and controversial comments about us, what does he have to say during today. >> an n.a.t.o. summit in my hometown city of chicago, and many peoples including many

afghan-americans and including the karzai family. mr. president, welcome. we meet at a critical moment. 33,000 additional forces that i ordered to afghanistan have served with honor, have completed their mission and as promised, returned home this past fall. the transition is well underway. soon nearly 90% of afghans will give in areas where afghan forces are in the lead for their own security. this year will mark another milestone. afghan forces will take the lead for security across the entire country. by the end of next year, 2014, the transition will be complete. afghans will have full responsibility for their security and this war will come to a responsible end. the progress is only possible because of the incredible sacrifices of our troops and our diplomates, forces of our

many coalition partners and the afghan people have endured extraordinary hardship. in this war more than 2000 of america's sons and daughters have given their lives. these are patriots that we honor today, tomorrow, and forever. and as we announced today, the next month i will present our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor to staff sergeant clint morashea for his role in afghanistan. today because of the courage of our citizens, president karzai and i have been able to review our strategy. with the devastating blows struck against al-qaeda, our core objective, the reason we went to war in the first place is now within reach ensuring that al-qaeda can never again use afghanistan to launch attacks against our country. at the same time, we pushed the taliban out of their holds.

today, most major cities and most afghans are more secure than insurgents have continued to lose territory. meanwhile, afghan forces continue to grow stronger. as planned, some 352,000 afghan soldiers and police are now in training or on duty. most missions are already being led by afghan forces. and of all the men and women in uniform in afghanistan, the vast majority are afghans who are fighting and dying for their country every day. we still face significant challenges. but because this progress, our transition is on track. at the n.a.t.o. summit last year, we agreed with our coalition partners that after beg afghan forces in 2013. the president has been here and we've consulted with

coalition partners and continue to do so. today we agreed that as afghan forces take the lead and as president karzai announces the final phase of the transition, coalitions forces will move to a support role this spring. our troops will continue to fight alongside afghan forces as needed, but starting this spring our troops will have a different mission, training, advising, assisting, afghan forces. it will be a historic moment and another step toward full afghan sovereignty, something i know that president karzai cares deeply about, as do the afghan people. this sets the stage for the further reduction of coalition forces. we've already reduced our presence in afghanistan to roughly 66,000 u.s. troops. i've pledged we'll continue to bring our forces home at a steady pace and in the coming months i'll announce the next phase of our drawdown, a

responsible drawdown to protect the gains our troops have made. president karzai and i also discussioned the nature of our security operation after 2014. our teams continue to work toward a security agreement and as they do, they will be guided by our respect for afghan sovereignty and by our two long-term tasks which will be very specific and very narrow. first, training and assisting afghan forces, and second, targeting counterterrorism missions, targeted counterterrorism missions against al-qaeda and its affiliates. our discussions will focus how best to achieve these two tasks after 2014 and it's our hope that we can reach an agreement this year. ultimately, security gains must be matched by political progress, so we recommitted our nations to a reconciliation process between the afghan government and the taliban. president karzai updated me on the afghan government's road map to peace and so today we

agreed that this process should be advanced by the opening of a taliban office that facilitate talks and requires support from across the region, including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken in at that regard and we'll look for more tangible steps because a stable and secure afghanistan is in the interest not only of the afghan people and the united states, but the entire region. and finally, we reaffirm the strategic partnership we signed last year in kabul, the partnership between two sovereign nations, deepening ties of trade and commerce, development of education, opportunities for all afghans, men and women, boys and girls. this sends a clear message to afghans and to the region, as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. now, let me close by saying

that this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and make tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces still need to grow strong. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governments and development that delivers for the afghan people and an end to safe havens for al-qaeda and its ilk. all of this will continue to be our work. but make no mistake, our path is clear and we are moving forward. every day more afghans are stepping up and taking responsibility for their own security. as they do, our troops will come home. and next year, this long war will come to a responsible end. president karzai, i thank you and your delegation for the progress we've made together and for your commitment to the goals that we share. a strong and sovereign afghanistan where afghans find

the security, peace, prosperity and dignity and pursuit of that future, afghanistan will have a long-term partner, the united states of america. mr. president. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. president, for the very gracious and warm welcome. to me and to the delegation and this visit to washington, and for bearing with us as i mentioned during our talks, with the crowds that we have there. the president and i discussed today in great detail all the relevant issues between the two countries. i was happy to see that we have made progress on some of the important issues for

afghanistan, concerning afghan sovereignty. we agreed on the complete retain of detention centers and afghan sovereignty, and that this will be implemented soon after my return to afghanistan. we also discussed all aspects of transition to afghan governance and security. i'm very happy to hear from the president as we also discussed it earlier that in spring this year the afghan forces will be fully responsible for providing security and protection to the afghan people. and that the international forces, the american forces will be no longer present in afghan villages, that the task

will be that of the afghan forces to provide for the afghan people in security and protection. that we also agreed on the steps we should be taking to -- in the peace process, which is of highest priority to afghanistan. we agreed on allowing the taliban office in qatar, in doha where the taliban was engaged in direct talks with the representatives of the afghan high council for peace, where we will be seeking the help of relevant regional countries including pakistan. where we'll be trying our best, together with the united states and our other allies, to return peace and civility to afghanistan as soon as possible and employing all the

means that we have within our power to do that so the afghan people can live in security and peace and work for their prosperity and educate their children. the president and i also discussed the economic transition in afghanistan and all that entails for afghanistan. and once the transition to afghan forces is completed, once the bulk of these international forces are withdrawn from afghanistan, we hope that the dividends of that transition, economically to afghanistan will be beneficial to the afghan people and will not have adverse effects on afghan economy and the prosperity that we have gained in the past many years. we also discussed the issue of election in afghanistan and the importance of election for the afghan people and with the hope that we'll be conducting a free and fair connection in afghanistan where our friends

in the international community and the united states will be assisting in conducting those elections, of course, where afghanistan will have the right environment for conducting elections without interference and without undue concern for the afghan people. we also discussed in a bit of detail and in the environment that we have all aspects of the financial security between afghanistan and the united states and i informed the president that the afghan people already in the lawyer jargon called for strategic partnership agreement between us and the united states have given their approval to this

relationship and one that's good for afghanistan. so in that context, our national security agreement is one that the afghan people approved and so we will conduct it in detail where both interests of the united states and the interests of afghanistan will be kept in mind. we had a number of issues to talk about. during our conversations and perhaps many times in that conversation, beginning with the conversation of course, i thanked the president for the help that the united states has given to the afghan people, for all that we have gained the past ten years and that those gains will be kept by any standard while we're working for peace and stability in afghanistan, including the respect for afghan constitution. i also thanked the president and those sacrifices of

american men and women in uniform and those of other countries. accordingly, i also informed the president obama of the sacrifices of the afghan people, the immense sacrifices of the afghan people in the past ten years, for the servicemen and of the afghan people. going back to afghanistan this evening to bring to the afghan people the news of afghanistan spending shorter and shorter with america as a sovereign independent country, but in cooperation and in partnership. thank you, mr. president for the hospitality. >> thank you very much. okay, we've got two questions each, i think, from u.s. and

afghan press and then we'll start with scott wilson of washington post. >> mr. president, does moving up the deadline for the transition to an afghan security you'll be winding down u.s. troops faster tan you expected this year and as specifically as possible, how many troops do you expect to leave in afghanistan beyond 2014 for the two missions you outlined and would you consider leaving any troops in afghanistan beyond that date without an immunity agreement for their actions? and president karzai, you've spoken often about the threat the american president in afghanistan poses to your nation's sovereignty, but i'm wondering if you will be considering and working on behalf of an immunity agreement to preserve some u.s. forces in afghanistan after the 2014 date and how many u.s. troops you would accept after that time? thank you. >> scott, our first task has

been to meet the transition plan that we set first in lisbon and then in chicago, and because of the process that's been made by our troops, because of the progress that's been made in terms of afghan security forces, their capacity to take the lead, we are able to meet those goals and accelerate them somewhat. so, let me repeat, what's going to happen this spring is that afghans will be in the lead throughout the country. that doesn't mean that coalition forces, including u.s. forces, are no longer fighting. they will still be fighting alongside afghan troops. it does mean though that afghans will have taken the lead and our presence, the nation of our work will be different. we will be in a training,

assisting, advising role and obviously we will still have troops there and that means that our men and women will still be in harm's way, that there will still be the need for force protection. you know, the environment is going to still be very dangerous, but what we've seen is that afghan soldiers are stepping up at great risk to themselves. and that allows us then to make this transition during this spring. what that translates into precisely in terms of how this drawdown of u.s. troops proceeds is something that isn't yet fully determined. i'm going to be, over the weeks, getting recommendations from general allen and other commanders on the ground. they will be designing and shaping a responsible plan to make sure that we're not

losing the gains that have already been made and to make sure that we're in a position to support afghan units when they're in theater and to make sure that our folks are also protected even as we're drawing down, so, i can't give you a precise number at this point. i'll probably make a separate announcement once i've gotten recommendations from troops -- from the generals and our commanders in terms of what that drawdown might look like. with respect to post-2014, we've got two goals and our main conversation today was establishing a meeting of the minds in terms of what those goals would be with the follow on presence of u.s. troops. number one, to train, assist and advise afghan forces so that they can maintain their own security and number two, making sure that we can continue to go after remnants

of al-qaeda or other affiliates that might threaten our homeland. that is a very limited mission, and it is not one that would require the same kind of footprint, obviously, that we've had over the last ten years in afghanistan. similar to the issue of drawdown, i'm still getting recommendations from the pentagon and our commanders on the ground in terms of what that would look like, and when we have more information about that, i will be describing that to the american people. you think president karzai's primary concern, and obviously, you'll hear directly from him, is making sure that afghan sovereignty is rejected and if we have a follow on force of any sort past 2014, it's got to be and the invitation of the afghan government and they have to feel comfortable with it.

i will say, and i've said to president karzai, that we have arrangements like this with countries all around the world. and nowhere do we have any kind of security agreement with a country without immunity for our troops. you know, that's how i, as commander-in-chief, can make sure that our folks are protected in carrying out very difficult missions and so, i think president karzai understands that. i don't want to get ahead of ourselves in terms of the negotiations that are still remaining on a bilateral security agreement, but i think it's fair to say from my perspective at least, it will not be possible for us to have any kind of u.s. troop presence post-2014 without assurances that our men and women who are operating there are in some way subject to the jurisdiction of another

count count country. >> well, sir, the bilateral security agreement is in mind for the interest of both countries. we understand th issue of immunity is of very specific importance for the united states, as was, for us, the issue of sovereignty and detentions and the continued presence of international forces in afghan villages and very conduct of the war itself. with those issues resolved, as we did today, the rest was done earlier. i can go to the afghan people and argue for immunity for u.s. troops in afghanistan, in a way that afghan sovereignty

would not be compromised, in a way that afghan law would not be compromised, in a way that the provisions that we arrive at through our talks will give the united states the satisfaction of what it seeks and will also provide the afghan people the benefits they are seeking through this partnership and the subsequent agreement. agreement. that's not for us to decide, it's an issue for the united states. numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in afghanistan. it's the broader relationship that will make a difference to afghanistan and beyond in the region. the specifics of numbers are issues that the military will decide and afghanistan will have no particular concern when we are talking of numbers and how they're deployed.

(inaudibl (inaudible) >> kabul and afghanistan, i ask my question in the language. >> the missions of-- combative missions of the united states after 2014, how this mission will be? how will it be resembling, resembling the same mission as it was during 11 years or is there a difference, different kind of missions? those who are in pakistan, particularly the safe havens that are in pakistan. what kind of policy will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be

fundamentally different. to just to repeat, our main reason should we have troops in afghanistan post 2014 at the invitation of the afghan government will be to make sure that we are training, assisting and advising afghan security forces who have now taken the lead for, and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan and an interest that the united states has, the very reason that we went to afghanistan in the first place and that's to make sure that al-qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghan soil. we believe we can achieve that mission in a way that's very different from the very active presence that we've had in afghanistan over the last 11

years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presence in afghan villages, for example, have created. well, that's not going to be a strain exists if there's a follow-up operation because that will not be our responsibility, that will be the responsibility of the afghan national security forces to maintain peace and order and stability in afghan villages, and afghan territory. so, i think, you know, although obviously we're still two years away, i can say with assurance that this is a very different mission and a very different task than a very different footprint for the u.s. if we are able to come to an appropriate agreement. and with respect to pakistan

and safe havens there, afghanistan and the united states and pakistan, all have an interest in reducing the threat of extremism in some of these border regions between afghanistan and pakistan and that's going to require more than simply military actions. that's really going to require political and diplomatic work between afghanistan and pakistan and that the united states obviously will have an interest in facilitating and participating in cooperation between the two sovereign countries. but as president karzai, i think, has indicated, it's very hard to imagine a stability and peace in the region if pakistan and afghanistan don't come to some basic agreement and understanding about the threat of extremism to both countries and both governments and both

capitals and i think you're starting to see a greater awareness of that on the part of the pakistani government. >> the question that you have made about -- we talked about this issue today, about the presence, about the detention centers, all of these will transfer to the afghan sovereignty, where in that u.s. forces will pull out from villages, will go to their bases, and afghan sovereignty will be restored and after 2014 we are working on it, on

this relation. this relation will have a different nature and will have different principles. it will resemble, probably the turkey-united states and turkey, or germany. we are studying these relationship and we will do th that. >> thank you, mr. president. do you can template the end of this war, can you say as commander-in-chief that the huge human and financial costs for this has entailed, can be justified given the fact that the afghanistan in the world we leave behind is somewhat diminished from the visions of reconstruction and democracy that were kind of prevalent the beginning of the war? and president karzai, many independent studies have criticized afghanistan for corruption and for government.

do you stand by that this is due to the influence of foreigners and are you completely committed to stepping down as president after the elections next year? >> i want us to remember why we went to afghanistan. we went into afghanistan because 3000 americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling afghanistan. it was absolutely the right thing to do for us to go after that organization, to go after the host government that had aided and abetted or at least allowed for these attacks to take place, and because of the heroic work of our men and

women in uniform and because of the cooperation and sacrifices of afghans who had also been brutalized by that then host government, we achieved our central goal, which is -- or have come close to achieving our central goal which is to decapacitate al-qaeda to dismantle them to make sure this they can't attack us again. and everything we've done over the last ten years from the perspective of the u.s. national security interests have been focused on that aim. and you know, at the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the goal that we sought. now, what we also recognized

very early on was that it was in our national security interest to have a stable, sovereign afghanistan that was a responsible international actor that was in partnership with us and that that required afghanistan to have its own security capacity and to be on a path that was more likely to achieve prosperity and peace for its own people. and i think president karzai would be the first to acknowledge that afghanistan still has work to do to accomplish those goals, but there's no doubt that the possibility of peace and prosperity in afghanistan today is higher than before we went in. and that is also in part because of the sacrifices that the american people have made during this long conflict.

so you know, i think that have we achieved everything that some might have imagined us achieving in the best of scenarios? probably not. you know, there's a human enterprise, you know, you fall short of ideal. did we achieve our central goal, and have we been able, i think, to shape a strong relationship with a responsible afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against the united states? we have achieved that goal. we're in the process of achieving that goal, and for that, i think we have to thank our extraordinary military intelligence, diplomatic teams, as well as the

cooperation of the afghan government and the afghan people. >> sir, on the question of corruption whether it has a foreign element to it, if i'm correct in understanding your question, there is corruption in afghanistan. there is corruption in-- that we are fighting against employing various means and methods. we have succeeded in certain ways, but if your question is whether we are satisfied, of course not. and on the corruption that is foreign in origin, but occurring in afghanistan, i have been very clear and explicit and i don't think

that afghanistan can see this corruption and in this there's cooperation between us and our international partners on correcting some of the methods and applications of delivery of assistance for afghanistan without cooperation and without recognition of the problems. on elections, for me, the greatest of my achievements eventually as seen by the afghan people will be a prop proper, well-organized interference-free election in which the afghan people can elect their next president. and certainly i would be a retired president and very

happily a retired president. >> my questions to you, mr. president, afghan women fear that they will be the victim of the process in afghanistan. what assurances you can give them that they will not suffer because of that process? >> the united states has been clear any peace process, any reconciliation process must be afghan-led. it is not for the united states to determine what the terms of this peace will be, but what we have also been very clear about is that from our perspective it is not possible to reconcile without

the taliban renouncing terrori terrorism, without them recognizing the afghan constitution, and recognizing that if there are changes that they want to make to how the afghan government operates, then there is an orderly constitutional process to do that, that you can't resort to violence. the afghan constitution protects the the rights of afghan women and the united states strongly believes that afghanistan cannot succeed unless it givers opportunity to its women. we believe that about every country in the world. and so you know, we will continue to voice very strongly support for the

afghan constitution, its protection of minorities, its protection of women, and we think that a failure to provide that protection not only will make reconciliation impossible to achieve, but also, would make afghan-- afghanistan's long-term development impossible to achieve. you know, the single best indicator or one of the single best indicators of a country's prosperity around the world is how does it treat its women. does it educate that half of the population. does it give them opportunity. when it does, you unleash the power of everyone, not just some. and i think there was great wisdom in afghanistan ratifying a constitution at that recognized that.

that should be part of the legacy of the last ten years. okay. thank you very much, everybody. everybody. >> . >> the conflict in afghanistan began 11 years, 3 months and 4 days ago, and you heard president obama saying now our objective in afghanistan has been reached, al-qaeda has suffered devastating blows. we have dismantled them and we have come very close to achieving our central goal, at a different point he said we have achieved the goal. we have 66,000 troops there now and come home at a steady pace and the president says a responsible drawdown and he will announce steps in the coming months regarding how that drawdown go, but the president saying beginning this spring, our troops will take on more of a supportive role in afghanistan and president hamid karzai of afghanistan striking somewhat

of a conciliatory tone, thanking the president for our help, the afghanistan people and the gains of the last ten years, and thanking our men and women in uniform. john bolton is here, a former u.s. ambassador to the united nations and a fox news contributor. can i just start with hamid karzai. before we went to the presser, i mean, if there's a more colorful character in international relations, it's not a long list of those who surpass him. s we've imposed corruption on afghanistan in the past, the day after the benghazi attack that took the life of our ambassador and three others, he condemned the abhorrance of the anti-islam film and reportedly a manic depressive admitted to accepting 2 million in cash a year from iran and support pack if there was a conflict between pakistan at united states and now comes out and says, thanks for all the help. thanks to the u.s. military and he supports the

president's decision to make us have more of a supporting role now. your take on what we just witnessed? >> well, i think the president was laying the groundwork and said as much to accelerate the departure of american troops and to reduce their role ahead of the schedule than we actually thought. there was an interesting divergence between what the president said and what president hamid karzai said. president obama kept referring to the spring when afghan troops will take the lead, a very vague phrase to say the least. president karzai was very specific, he said americans troops will come out of the villages and go back to their bases, and that's very different from who takes the lead. so i think the president's very clear here, our president, that he's moving more quickly than he thought possible, to reduce the active american role there. and i think that's a real mistake on our part.

you can talk all you want about what our true presence is going to be after 2014, but if we reduce even more quickly and more precipitously in terms of numbers than we've talked about, we're simply hasteening the day when the colorful hamid karzai will depart the scene and the taliban will take over again and invite al-qaeda back into the country. >> megyn: and maybe invite hamid karzai to follow through on his previous statement about joining them. i mean, what-- >> or swing from a noose. >> megyn: right. and at this pace, what are things going to look like. i mean, the summer, this summer of 2013, with this drawdown on our troops and i don't mean to suggest in any way that you know, that's necessarily bad. i know you think it's bad, but a lot of our viewers will disagree, ambassador bolten. the longest, the this war has been longer than the civil war, world war i, world war ii combined and americans are weary. but having said that, if we start withdrawing the troops faster than even than we planned, which is controversial to begin with, end of 2014, what do things

look like there this summer? >> well, let me take issue with you, if i can. the president's weary of this war, that's for sure and his lack of leadership over the past four years in explaining to the american people why the fight against taliban and al-qaeda need to be, need to be pursued has led to their weariness. you can talk about the duration of the war, but the notion that the intensity of combat in afghanistan for the past 11 years looks anything like world war ii, the civil war, it's just not even comparable. we're in a struggle not because we want to be in a struggle, but because the terrorists have attacked us. what we're doing is under the president's plan is, we're leaving the battlefield more quickly than we should, without achieving our strategic objectives, despite what he says about al-qaeda, and risking that all of the sacrifice that he spoke so eloquently about will simply go to waste and that will be a real tragedy if that happens. >> megyn: and those are some

mistakes, even for folks who are weary, there are some besides president obama of the war-- >> we didn't start this, we didn't start this. we don't want it. and the question is, do we protect ourselves better by keeping taliban and al-qaeda tied down or do we let them go back to pre--9/11/2001. taliban controlling the country. al-qaeda riding on their backs, a safe haven to plan for attacks. >> megyn: and american men and women serving that, wondering what they were there for if the country winds up looking much like it did in 2000. >> exactly. >> megyn: some the issues that will be considered. ambassador bolten, thanks for being here, sir. >> thank you. >> megyn: see you soon. want to get to some other news at this hour, this is a fox news alert on this flu outbreak. as the death toll climbs and one federal health agency starts calling this an epidemic, i'm megyn kelly, the centers for disease control releasing its latest numbers on the flu today noting that

20 children have now died and 47 states are now dealing with widespread flu activity. up from 41 last week. but there's a big lag in the c.d.c. reporting and those numbers do not tell the whole story. in just the last 48 hours, we've learned that flu now killed 27 in minnesota, 22 in pennsylvania, 18 in massachusetts, and 8 in oklahoma, 6 in illinois. several nursing home patients have died in new york and it's important to note that it is the elderly and infants and children, to some extent. considered the most vulnerable. jonathan serrie is at the cnc with more. >> the lag. the latest data coming from about a week ago. 47 states reporting widespread flu activity, but the c.d.c. is balancing this with preliminary information that flu activity may be diminishing some parts of the

country especially here in the south where the flu struck much earlier than usual. the data comes close to the holidays and c.d. dchl.d.c. wary could be somewhat skewed. >> some people don't go to the doctors until they're very sick. we have to look at the post holidays, the data will smooth out and we'll understand what's happening. >> with reports of spotty shortages, call your medical provider in advance, to see if there's vaccine and one ccs minute clinic nurse said she's seen an increase in patients over the past couple of weeks, take a listen. >> we're keeping up with the demands and a higher need this year than last year and we're doing our best to keep the clinics with all the age appropriate flu vaccine doses available to the populations. >> and today, the c.d.c.

estimates that this year, seasonal flu vaccine is 62% effective. meaning if you got the shot. you're 62% less likely to have to go to the doctor with flu-like symptoms, megyn. >> all right, jonathan, thank you. the flu infections way up this season and hospitals are struggling to deal with overflowing emergency rooms. one hospital in pennsylvania even forced to set up a special tent to deal with the influx of sick patients, we showed it to you earlier. dr. earnest patty from st. barnabas here in new york city. thanks for being here. how bad is it. >> very bad. our volume on a normal busy day, we're seeing well own 300 parents a day, due to flu and flu-like illness. >> megyn: is it baby, children, elderly? >> spanning the gamut. the other day a 26 day old child tested positive for flu

and fortunately doing well. we've had elderly patients with the flu and the spectrum runs through the middle as well with the middle age and teenagers. >> megyn: on the subject of a newborn baby, could you give a newborn baby the flu vaccination? >> no, we wouldn't give the vaccination, but treating the baby with anti-viral medications, and there are c.d.c. guidelines now we've referred to that allows to treat children who are young. >> megyn: i heard children younger than five the most at risk. >> definitely, the very young and very old, how we remember it, and those with other health diseases, asthma, people with diabetes, people who have emphysema, those maybe on chemotherapy for cancers or immuno suppressed. >> megyn: you see the map and 47 states describing a wyatt spread fluout break and it's scary. you think of the movie outbreak, how far is it spreading, how fast is it spreading and how far is it going to go?

why is it so bad. >> it's so bad it started before the holidays and don't forget people travel across the country and gather in large gatherings and spent time together and share meals, ease toy spread the flu, very easy, the good news is that there are easy ways to protect yourself and stay healthy. remember, you have to wash your hands. >> megyn: hot water and sing happy birthday. >> yeah, supposed to sing happy birthday, 30 to 50 seconds and the anti-bacterial soap, and use sues and throw them away. and nothing wrong with masks when people show up with flu-like symptoms before we diagnose them with the flu and get your flu vaccine so it's very, very important. it's careful, you travel public transportation and handles and doorknobs. >> megyn: how long can the flu

virus on the subway, or cough into your elbow. >> eight, ten, hours. >> megyn:. >> really. >> and frequent hand washing. >> megyn: let's say you touch it with your glove. >> it's then on your glove and you need to wipe your gloves down with anti-bacterial wipes and throw them in the washer. >> megyn: nothing kills them, but anti-bacterial solution or salt water and soap. >> and disinfectants and with alcohol in it help to get rid testify. >> megyn: how are people dying, flu you equate it with a terrible, terrible cold plus a few symptoms. how are they dying. >> people with normal immune systems usually do well, it passes after a number of days, the problem is there's complication toss influenza and those are the people who maybe let it go a little too long, maybe they're weak or overworked or overstressed. >> megyn: but they get it. >> pneumonia. >> megyn: you said pneumonia,

isn't that treatable and penicillin. >> if you have a bacterial pneumonia, we have drugs that treat that. but remember, we're dealing with viruses that mutate and they overwhelm you before you get to the hospital. people are coming in later in the course of the disease and hard to get back and treat them when they have a full-blown pneumonia. we have antibiotics when it's indicated. >> megyn: and doctor has been telling us it's not too late. get the flu vaccine and should do it now especially in new york where we're seeing dangerous levels. >> no matter where you are you should get a flu vaccine. >> megyn: unless you're in hawaii, california or mississippi, those are the three states, weirdly. i have no explanation for this, that aren't reporting at least the widespread flu outbreak. you're not safe anywhere. >> people are moving back and forth, stay healthy, sleep, meals and plenty of fluids.

>> megyn: thank you, doctor. the n.r.a. walking out of the white house gun meetings saying the whole thing felt like a show, for what they called cover for the attack on the second amendment. we will be live with the director of the n.r.a. next about the group's new move. a growing debate about a pastor who pulled out of his role in the president's inaugural after a controversial sermon from 15 or 20 years ago came to light. the question now, is this the latest victim to what one writer you know well called, quote, the intolerant left? plus, an ingenuous prank on tape after a man built a car that drives up to the fast foot window a food window and no one is behind the wheel. we'll show you and the reaction. >> hello. >> what the heck is going on? (laughter) oh, my gosh! (laughter)

at a dry cleaner, we replaced people with a machine. what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? hello?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello? ally bank. your money needs an ally.

living with moderate to semeans living with pain.is it could also mean living with joint damage. help relieve the pain and stop the damage with humira, adalimumab. for many adults with moderate to severe ra, humira is clinically proven to help relieve pain and stop joi damage. so you can treat more than just the pain. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened.

blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worseng heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if youhave had, are prone to infections or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your rheumatologist about humira, to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage before they stop you.

>> fox news alert. a new reaction from the national rifle association to the ongoing gun debate in this country. the group came out at yesterday's gun violence meeting with the vice-president, joe biden, calling that meeting a quote, political show. it issued a statement that reads in part, quote, we were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an

agenda to attack the secretary amendment. claiming that no policy proposals would be prejudged this task force spent most time on restrictions on lawful firearms owners honest, tax paying, hard-working americans. joining me is chris cox, a chief lobbyist for the n.r.a. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> megyn: you go to the white house, or your colleagues go to the white house and meet with the vice-president. obviously, as somebody who is, you know, chiefly responsible for the 2004 assault weapons ban in place, joe biden, we know where he stands. but what did you expect were you going to get there? >> well, megyn, we were hoping to have a meaningful conversation how to keep our kids safe. that's a conversation that's happening all over america, those of us who are parents are having it, and we were hoping to have meaningful discussion, it became clear early that they weren't looking to hear from gun owners they were looking to blame gun owners.

that's unfortunate because this is a very serious discussion. there's things that can be done, but our number one objective is to keep our kids safe. >> megyn: that's what i want to pick up on with you. there are things that can be done. your group holds a lot of power because americans believe in your admission, so many millions of americans believe in your mission, your roles have increased, but americans hold a different view. what things do you think can be agreed on. >> there are things that can be done if we look at the goal of protecting our kids. we need more armed security. it was good enough for bill clinton. bill clinton supported cops in schools, if it's good enough for bill clinton it should be good enough for presidea. megyn, we also have to address the underlying problem and have an honest discussion about what works and what doesn't work. gun control's been a failed experiment. joe biden pushed a gun ban through in 1994 and bill clinton's justice department said it had no impact on crime. let's look at mental health. let's look at a violent

culture, let's look at things that can address the underlying problem and then we can start making a difference in our kids' lives. >> megyn: thank you for the correction, '94 and in place until 2004. what specifically, clearly, clearly, we need to look at the mental health. i've said on this program so many times, so many are focused on disarming the madman, we're not looking at dissuading the madman, or control him, not to get the guns and that needs to be addressed. is there any gun restriction, talking universal background checks or tightening the mental health background checks, is there anything you can agree on? >> megyn, you're right with regard to the mental health system. there are red flags in all of these instances where people ignored problems. we can't do that in this country. and if you see something, you need to say something. the mental health records need to be put in the gun background check systems, and half the states aren't putting in the records. we support getting those guns

in the system or the records in the system. the problem as you know, in connecticut these guns were stolen so we can talk about background checks all day long, but it's not addressing the underlying problem of how do we keep our kids safe. let's do a better job with school security, a better job with mental health and look across the board at a violent culture that we all know is having an impact. but the national rifle association supports safety and responsibility. that's who we are, that's what we're about and we're not going to accept the blame for a madman or a deranged criminal who goes out and causes problems. >> megyn: listen, there are clearly some people looking to use what's happened as an excuse to push an agenda they had long before this, but there are many others who are rational thinking people who say is there anything we can do? we don't want another, another newtown. we don't want it and if there's a way of keeping the high capacity magazine or the ar-15 out of the hands of

somebody like adam lanza, they're trying to think of a way and focus on the high capacity magazines. you've heard your detractor, what do you need 100 rounds for, in what capacity is that necessary? your thoughts on that. >> megyn, every gun owner in america was heart broken over what happened in connecticut, there's no gun owner in america who wants to see some madman go out and misuse a firearm, but we have to be honest in this country about what works and what doesn't work. we had a gun ban, we had a high capacity magazine ban, not for six months or for a year, but for a decade, and even bill clinton's justice department said it had no impact. so if he we want to paper over these problems with feel-good legislation that won't keep our kids safe, that's the direction the conversation should go. that's not our objective. that's not our underlying principle. our principle is let's work together to keep our kids safe. >> let's do a better job with armed security and attack and

address problems with mental health and if we can do that, we can keep our kids safe and feel better sending them to school. >> megyn: and they're looking at meant health. co kathleen sebelius rather than joe biden. what did they say. >> they weren't interested in that. they were interested on pushing, a failed agenda. and we're take it go not only to the american people, but those on capitol hill interested in a meaningful conversation. yesterday was nothing more than a dog and pony show, they checked a box, yep, we met with the n.r.a. that's unfortunate given the seriousness of the situation we' we're. >> megyn: could you clarify what you said about the mental health records getting more connected to the background checks. how could that be done? >> sure, well, the background check system was set up to prevent people who shouldn't get access to firearms from getting access.

violent criminals, dishonorably discharged from the military and mentally adjudicated by the court as mentally defective. about half the states don't put the meant records into the system and we supported legislation in the past to put those records. and we called on the states to put those records in. but let's not forget the best background check system in the world is not going to prevent someone from committing an evil act. so what can we do right now immediately to protect our kids? it's school security and addressing a broken mental health system. >> megyn: chris cox, thank you for being here, we appreciate it. >> thanks, megyn. >> megyn: taking your thoughts on it, follow me on twitter: @megyn kelly. and a pastor was set to speak at the inauguration when a sermon 15 or 20 years by this man and he mentioned how christianity could be the answer to homosexuality and talked how he believed it was

a sin and so on. well, the left wing blogs blew up on this and the pastor stepped aside. is this the latest scalp-- kirsten powers comes on the program and she's a liberal, what she's calling the intolerant left. that's next. the heartburn b. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. ♪ oh what a relief it is!

>> well, a new debate is emerging over whether an evangelical pastor who just pulled out of the president's inauguration should have hung in there. the reverend, louie-- how it's pronounced, withdraw after a sermon surfaced from 20 years ago. a left wing blog blew up over how he mentioned that christianity could be the answer to homosexuality and that's not all he said. he quickly stepped down at the inaugural committee released a statement, we were not aware

of his past comments at the time of his selection and doesn't represent our desire to represent the strength and diversity of our country. and goes on to say now we'll ensure that whoever we pick will reflect the vision of inclusion and acceptance for all americans. after the news broke, writer and fox news analyst kirsten power tweeted out, the intolerant left claims another scalp. for the record i don't agree with about a lot of what he said, but his sermon is basic orthodox christianity. who is next, the pope. and joining us is monica crowley and she raises a good point, orthodox christianity

says that homosexuality is a sin, but he went on from there there may not be a place in heaven for gay people. i haven't talked about this in 20 years and i don't want to be a problem so i'll withdraw and it seems the presidential inaugural was only too happy to see him go, what do you macomb county of that. >> they recommended him to give the benediction and the controversy broke and again, he hasn't been talking about this for 15 or 20 years and the reason they put him in the spot to begin with, he has done extraordinary work to combat human trafficking, which is what his life's work has been since then. so, he said, look, you know, i'd love to be able to focus on this and give a great christian benediction at this inaugural, i don't want to be a distraction, what's strike to go me, the white house accepted his stepping down from this job, but they also didn't defend him. didn't say, look. >> megyn: not at all. >> he wants to withdraw, that's fine, but we enforce his right to believe-- >> they're like we didn't know he said this stuff and the next guy we get will be more

inclues seive. do they have a point? >> i think that monica has a point. >> and i think that kirsten has a point as well. i certainly disassociate myself from everything he said, horrible and wrong, but it's pretty standard christian orthodoxy, if you're going to have pastor give invocations, ministers or catholic priests, for example, chances are they're going to believe-- >> or a muslim imam. >> so my point, if you're going to the trouble of having a religious leader speak unless you get somebody who is really sort of in the mainline protestant denominations that are supportive of gay marriage, chances are you'd have someone like a catholic priest. i find hypocritical, cory booker, a mayor, who said unkind things about gay people, by two men kissing, and-- >> what about chuck hagel. >> chuck hagel apologized.

>> megyn: but he got passed for defense secretary and he says some guy was aggressively gay. >> my point is if somebody said i made a mistake in the early '90s, and i don't anymore. he got a raw deal. i don't think he went to the lengths of saying i don't subscribe to this. and substitute the word black for interracial marriage and all of a sudden, they wouldn't. and if you're in support of gay marriage you have to say this this is discriminatory. >> megyn: would the gay rights group say that no christian pastor, no muslim imam, i'm not sure where the jews stand on gay marriage. >> different-- >> and people of faith for a long time had an anti-gay stance. are we going to get to the point if you're a person of faith you cannot speak at a presidential inauguration. >> we're almost there, megyn.

you have the world's great religions have, what according political christians, unacceptable positions or policy of positions, kind of getting to the point where christianity is an easy target. so the christian pastor goes. but when you talk about maybe a jewish rabbi or a muslim imam holding the same positions, now is the intimidation campaign of the left leveled at them? not as of now. christianity seems to be the easy target, but we're going down a slippery slope where any person of faith in a position of authority representing any kind of major faith is going to be subjected to this kind of intimidation and bullying campaign and that's not right. now, this is an extension of the word police. we've been talking about the word police in a lighter context with brent musburger calling katherine webb beautiful and-- >> she's beautiful. >> and it broke loose. in this case, too, you've got the political angle. it is the presidential inauguration, it's different, but we're going down the road

where nobody can say anything. and if you go up to the line, it's considered unacceptable and you're out. >> megyn: thank you both so much for being here. >> a pleasure. >> thank you. >> megyn: coming up, not your average day at the drive-through. that's next.

>> whoa! [l1 >> whoa! [laughter] >> oh, my gosh! >> there's no one in it? where did they go? (laughter) >> am i tripin'? the guy with the diligence on the window. e the driveragician apparently disappear and didn't have to say the magic words. theow.ideos of this guy

freaking out workers at fast food workers at restaurants, quickly becoming a youtube sensation and we needed to get trace on it right away. >> reporter: the guy is clever and funny, rahat a magician and prankster and makes simple things and makes hilarious vdeos. in this one he uses a car seat costume. watch this. >> so, this is how the cosecome looks, while i'm wearing it and let's see how people react when a car, no driver, rolls up to the drive through window. >> so he gets in the cosecome, right, and sets up theow.ideo camera and driving through the fast food restaurants. you saw a little, but watch more. this is very funny. watch. >> p(aughter)

really? >> ooh my gosh! [laughter] >>. >> look, this thing goes on and it's like four minutes on youtube and i sat there this morning and doing this thing, what do we pull out because it's all so great. we were teasing it and this is just funny throughout. if you're looking for a laugh on a friday afternoon. this is it and google rahat and get the whole thing. >> megyn: and my favorite one was really! >> oh, snap. >> megyn: does he reveal at the end he's in there? >> no, he drives off and goes to the next one. >> megyn: trace, thank you. >> have a good weekend. >> megyn: thanks for the laugh. we'll be right back. ♪ i don't wanna be right

[ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it.